The Cauldron's server is expensive and requires monthly payments. Please become a Bronze, Silver or Gold Donor if you can. Donations are needed every month. Without member support, we can't afford the server.

This message board is The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum's SMF Archive Board. It is closed to new memberships and to posting, but there are over 250,000 messages here that you can still search and read -- many full of interesting and useful information. (This board was open from February 2007 through June 2011).

Our new vBulletin discussion board is located at http://www.ecauldron.com/forum/ -- if you would like to participate in discussions like those you see here, please visit our new vBulletin message board, register an account and join in our discussions. We hope you will find the information in this message archive useful and will consider joining us on our new board.

Thank you everyone for your replies. I think I can more accurately explain what I feel now.

When I take part in nationalistic ceremonies or events, I realize how easy it would by to slip from a simple feeling of pride and thankfullness, to jingoism, blind patriotism, ethnocentrism or even racism. I hope that the participants of nationalistic activities, myself included, can keep in mind the fact that a particular country has many faults as well as many weakness and that no country is better than any other. I hope, also, that we can remember our common humanity with people across the globe and how important it is to cultivate peace and tolerance. .

OK, this makes a bit more sense. I don't think the word you were looking for though is nationalism.

Nationalism, at least the way I've always seen / used it, refers to the political concept that the people living in a certain area (a nation state) are part of that nation-state. They are part of a larger social identity, the nation. they also owe allegiance to that nation-state in which they live.

I'm going to object to your statement that no country is better than any other. I think it's basically untrue.

Logged

Welcome, Guest!You will need to register and/or login to participate in our discussions.

OK, this makes a bit more sense. I don't think the word you were looking for though is nationalism.

Nationalism, at least the way I've always seen / used it, refers to the political concept that the people living in a certain area (a nation state) are part of that nation-state. They are part of a larger social identity, the nation. they also owe allegiance to that nation-state in which they live.

There are many definitions, which might account partly for our differing views. To me, nationalism means a pride and loyalty to ones country with emphasis on duty and obedience. It means putting nation before self and national goals before international ones.

Quote

I'm going to object to your statement that no country is better than any other. I think it's basically untrue.

I try not to make claims w/o backing them up or explaining myself. Sorry. Basically, what I mean is that it is impossible to rate countries along the lines of total "goodness" or "worth." There are simple too many variables:

I'm going to object to your statement that no country is better than any other. I think it's basically untrue.

One must be wary of the "relativist" camp. It's saying you cannot judge another or another's actions. (One can supplement 'a culture' etc. for 'another'.) It's also saying that anyone who would make a judgment about someone/something outside themselves are essentially evil and have no right to do so. Thus, that the individual is too stupid to make sound judgments.

Now, this ideology can be taken in different directions:

(1)And from this, since the individual is not capable of making decisions for themselves, the government must do it for them. Since people are too stupid, we must outlaw things, make regulations, and institute taxes and outlaw religion. In fact, fascism would seem the appropriate direction, and easy enough since the people have accepted all the prior state-mandated dictates outlining how they should live and act.

(2)And from this, humanity is too fallible to maintain any structure to regulate the behavior of others. How can one sit in judgment of another who has committed a crime? And, who says that what the person did is criminal, what is criminal...a judgment, that's what. The standing armies of the nation are a tool of judgment as well, this too must be disbanded. How are we to say "no" to an invading army? What rights do we have that supersede theirs? Dismantle the government, and let true socialism reign (anarchy).

WOO! Idealism v. Materialism. Been a while since I had fun with that topic

Quote

To me, nationalism means a pride and loyalty to ones country with emphasis on duty and obedience. It means putting nation before self and national goals before international ones.

Aye, and that's a pretty good definition from a personal perspective. What we have too often is people placing themselves before their family and nation.

One must be wary of the "relativist" camp. It's saying you cannot judge another or another's actions. (One can supplement 'a culture' etc. for 'another'.) It's also saying that anyone who would make a judgment about someone/something outside themselves are essentially evil and have no right to do so. Thus, that the individual is too stupid to make sound judgments.

Now, this ideology can be taken in different directions:

(1)And from this, since the individual is not capable of making decisions for themselves, the government must do it for them. Since people are too stupid, we must outlaw things, make regulations, and institute taxes and outlaw religion. In fact, fascism would seem the appropriate direction, and easy enough since the people have accepted all the prior state-mandated dictates outlining how they should live and act.

(2)And from this, humanity is too fallible to maintain any structure to regulate the behavior of others. How can one sit in judgment of another who has committed a crime? And, who says that what the person did is criminal, what is criminal...a judgment, that's what. The standing armies of the nation are a tool of judgment as well, this too must be disbanded. How are we to say "no" to an invading army? What rights do we have that supersede theirs? Dismantle the government, and let true socialism reign (anarchy).

WOO! Idealism v. Materialism. Been a while since I had fun with that topic Aye, and that's a pretty good definition from a personal perspective. What we have too often is people placing themselves before their family and nation.

Two issues.

You have attributed a quote to me that I didn't make by putting a quote from me at the top, but no attribution for the second one.

What are you saying in the large part of your post? Maybe I'm just not getting it because it's late, but it's not making sense to me.

I try not to make claims w/o backing them up or explaining myself. Sorry. Basically, what I mean is that it is impossible to rate countries along the lines of total "goodness" or "worth." There are simple too many variables:

There are many definitions, which might account partly for our differing views. To me, nationalism means a pride and loyalty to ones country with emphasis on duty and obedience. It means putting nation before self and national goals before international ones. (snip)

OK, so since you have trouble with the idea of nationalism are you saying you have no pride in your country? You'd put the goals and interests of say Iran ahead of the US (your country of citizenship).

Or are you saying that you have trouble with the large / public displays of nationalism?

Or maybe you are worried about what is refered to as ultra-nationalism?

You have attributed a quote to me that I didn't make by putting a quote from me at the top, but no attribution for the second one.

What are you saying in the large part of your post? Maybe I'm just not getting it because it's late, but it's not making sense to me.

Ah! Right, sorry about that. I deleted the wrong quote doohickeys in my thingy. It was sloppy of me.

As for the point of the post, I was expanding on the philosophical theories of Idealism and Materialism. Why I did this was that first statement I mistakenly attributed to you was one that is pounded into you when one attends a liberal school (which I did). And yes, the points were nonsensical because the theory is nonsense. It drove me nuts, so in a way, I thought I would share the insanity

However, that being said, one can see the effects of years of this type of thought being carried out in public policy (massive tax increases to fund social programs), schools (outlawing red pens because red is an aggressive color), and the legal system (thief gets to sue, and win a judgment against, the property owner for injuries while committing a crime).

So how does this relate? Subjectivity and relativism fall into a gray area where when considering an issue, the material distinctions tend to be ignored.

OK, so since you have trouble with the idea of nationalism are you saying you have no pride in your country?

I am proud of certain aspects, such as Democracy and health care, and embarrassed of others, like consumerism and pollution levels.

Quote

You'd put the goals and interests of say Iran ahead of the US (your country of citizenship).

Global goals and issues take priority over national ones. Not one country over another, but the welfare of the world's people, regardless of nationality, over the interests of one nation.

Quote

Or are you saying that you have trouble with the large / public displays of nationalism?

Yes, that's why I started this thread: to help myself understand why. And know I do know why. Because pride coupled with group mentality can lead to trouble. Can we participate in displays of nationalism, yet avoid becoming natiocentric? Many people, it seems, cannot.

Quote

Or maybe you are worried about what is referred to as ultra-nationalism?

Reducing our nation's carbon dioxide emissions, though perhaps not through Kyoto, is in the best interest of the world as a whole. Our country might suffer economically, but in the end pollution would be reduced. Since pollution is a major problem today, a reduction in its levels which would benefit us all.

Reducing our nation's carbon dioxide emissions, though perhaps not through Kyoto, is in the best interest of the world as a whole. Our country might suffer economically, but in the end pollution would be reduced. Since pollution is a major problem today, a reduction in its levels which would benefit us all.

While it would be nice to have us reduce our carbon emissions to help the world, killing our economy but letting China and others increase their carbon emissions to grow their economy is suicide. you'd be letting one of the largest polluters and weakest respect for the enviroment dominate the world economically.

Some treaties do work. Montreal one on CFCs worked (although russia cheated massively at first) because the technology was present to achieve the goals. MarPol, SOLAS, and others work because everybody is drawn in with no (major) advantage of one over another.